[livinincali]

[quote=earlyretirement]
Absolutely these on-line degrees I’m sure will pick up and become more popular. But quite honestly for me I learned more from college just going through the 4 years and going through the entire experience, dealing with people, living in the dorm my first year, living in a fraternity, etc.

The entire “college experience” was amazing to me. Looking back, I wouldn’t have changed anything about the experience. In fact, I want my kids to go through that experience rather than sitting at a desk learning online.

I think many people underestimate the social setting and the lessons you learn as a young adult navigating through that and dealing with so many groups of different types of people.

I think making it through college helps shape a person and makes them who they become as adults. That’s part of the reason why I think that colleges and universities will be able to charge what they do. I know many people that have the same opinion.

By the time my kids reach college if someone gives me the option to have them study and get an “online degree” for $X or go to a reputable and respected traditional University for $XXXXXX, I will still choose the traditional route even though it’s more expensive.[/quote]

How much is that experience worth to you and how exactly is that experience different than moving out of your parents house, moving in with some roommates and getting a job to pay for it. Moving out of your parents house and getting the experience of living on your own is what you describe. Why do you think it takes college to live that experience.

There’s plenty of non-college students in their early 20’s that live a lifestyle really similar to the college students. They get a lot of those same experiences and they didn’t have to pay for college to do it. Now college might feel like a safer place to send your child. It’s a more controlled environment and colleges today will help babysit your kid a bit, but it’s really not that different.

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=livinincali]Our education system should focus on problem solving, but often that takes a back seat to feel good topics. Not that feel good topics are bad, they just don’t do much to create economic growth.[/quote]

You have kids? What feel good topics are they studying? Mine have been out of high school for 8-10 years now. I have no recollectiong of them ever studying a “feel good” topic. Not in college either. Have things really changed that much?[/quote]

Maybe feel good topics isn’t the best choice of words. More like topics to make you a well rounded individual. Obviously one has to be able to effectively communicate through writing, but how exactly does reading and reporting on Shakespeare prepare you for the business world. Why isn’t a writing class focused on writing an executive report on the solution to a problem rather than what Shakespeare really meant in paragraph 2 on page 16, or even something that might be fun and somewhat practical like writing a story on the past weekend’s playoff games.

How do art classes prepare you for the business world. What do those classes do to advance economic activity. It’s not that they aren’t important or offer value. It’s just that, preferably you’d spend more time on problem solving activities.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
You keep referring to people who are not “like you” as lazy. Has it ever occurred to you that they might be harder-working, and even smarter than you? Some of the hardest workers are often the poorest, and I can show you many, many people with Ph.D.’s (even with your much-loved STEM degrees) who don’t even make $100K after decades on the job as a successful and proven employee.
[/quote]

You don’t get wealth from working hard. You get wealth from working smart and some degree of luck. The innovators are the ones that figure out smarter way to do a task. Whether changing the process or using a machine to replace manual labor.

Business at it’s core is problem solving. Find a problem and create a efficient solution for it. Our education system should focus on problem solving, but often that takes a back seat to feel good topics. Not that feel good topics are bad, they just don’t do much to create economic growth.

[livinincali]

[quote=desmond]Yes, flu the smart people will do fine, but, you need a strong and large middle class to pay for everything that has been promised. If not, you will will see a faster detrioration in the way we all live.[/quote]

Perhaps those promises just aren’t a mathematically reality. Retirement for the masses is a relatively new concept that was based on a population explosion that resulted from major gains in technology and transportation. Maybe working until you die doing something (whether it’s producing goods or providing services) is the sustainable equilibrium point. It’s been that way for decades prior to the 1950’s-1960’s.

Maybe retirement is something reserved from the select few (the top 20% or so). Whether you subscribe to the capitalist approach (you can retire if you have the most wealth) or a socialist approach in which is based on some moral/social structure (the oldest, the neediest, lottery, favored class by the leaders).

[livinincali]

[quote=earlyretirement]
It just seems like a vicious circle that will be difficult to break unless there are some serious changes in the system. As you mentioned EconProf, there doesn’t seem to be any incentive for most of the players to want to change the status quo. The banks, Universities/schools, teachers, etc. all have an incentive to keep this going on.[/quote]

The youth and/or the business innovators of this country are the only ones that can break the cycle. The youth can refuse to go to college or select inexpensive options. The business leaders of this community can stop taking the easy way out in selecting candidates and base it on what you know rather than the piece of paper you have. A degree requirement is just an easy way of weeding out a flood of applications. Business leaders should create online applications that test the ability to solve the problems of the business. The cheaters can be weeded out in the interview process.

MOOCs are a cheap way to learn the content. We just have to get the business community to accept them the same way they accept accredited universities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course

[livinincali]

[quote=The-Shoveler]manufacturing is making a comeback,

One word “Robots” well OK, two words,

Automation.[/quote]

Make sure you have a inexpensive energy source. All units of productivity from human labor or robots has two components. Efficiency and total energy consumption. Efficiency is limited by the second law of thermodynamics and there’s somewhat limited gains to be made in that realm. Means total energy output is the more important factor.

[livinincali]

[quote=earlyretirement]
I’m sure for law students or medical students with good track record, good grades, etc. you will still see student loans even with any possible change in the law.

However, a kids dream of racking up a 6 figure + undergrad degree in Anthropology, Art, History, Philosophy, Drama, Religion, Archeology, etc that has mediocre grades, I think better plan on getting their dreams shattered if there is any change in the law where students can write off student loan debt in bankruptcy.

If so, you won’t see lenders doling out this kind of cash for semi-worthless degrees.[/quote]

I agree completely. There will be money for law students and doctors, but it may not be up to $225K. It could certainly be less and if it’s less those universities providing those degrees will be forced to compete and likely have to reduce prices. That’s the entire goal of changing the way student loans work.

[livinincali]

[quote=squat300]no. it would be worth it to wait 3 years to discharge law school debt today.

tuition exceeds 50k, plus living expenses and ins chool interest, that’s 225,000 law school debt alone.

divided by 3, that’s $77,000 in benefit, tax free income.

i think many would take a 3 year hiatus for that!

5 years, a little tougher, but might still be worth it. dependng on the job market[/quote]

You assume that a lender would still let a prospective law student borrow $225K when they could default and declare bankruptcy. That’s the key right there. You need to find a balance between the risk of strategic default and what you’re willing to let someone borrow. Of course I’m sure that will be seen as evil and mean behavior by the banks. How can you possibly deny a kids dream.

[livinincali]

[quote=earlyretirement]
These banks and lenders are almost totally protected with the way the laws are set up. And they want to dole out as much as possible.
[/quote]

Exactly. Quickest way to break the college debt bubble is to allow student debt to be discharged in bankruptcy. Nothing will change the behavior of lenders quicker than having having the prospect of default staring them in the face. Want $100K to go to school better have the grades and major lined up that produces a positive return on investment. The non-charge nature of student loan debt came from a couple of high profile cases of doctors and lawyers declaring bankruptcy right after school and then getting a high paying job shortly after.

If you’re really worried about doctors and lawyers strategically defaulting right after school and then getting a high paying job after the bankruptcy clears then put a special stipulation in for that. You can put some kind of probationary period on the debt being discharged. If you’re income goes up after the bankruptcy during a probationary period (3-5 years) you’ll still be on the hook for some or all of the debt. Nobody is going to wait 3-5 years to start their career just to be able to declare bankruptcy and avoid the college debt.

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]
I have no idea what you mean by “we are now officially energy contrained, so that [growth] can’t happen”. Who made it official? Is energy of any kind being rationed?[/quote]

We’re certainly not energy constrained in the technical sense. I.e. we can certainly generate more electrical energy from a variety of sources, but cheap energy is more difficult. If you want serious economic growth you want to unlock a new cheap energy source. Of course between the environmentalists and the NIMBY’s it easy said than done.

Maybe Lawerence Livermore will unlock fusion sooner than later, but we’re probably still decades away unless you do a Manhattan style project.

[livinincali]

[quote=flu]
I’m not sure what the purpose of having two ovens (at least for me…)…[/quote]

Thanksgiving, maybe Christmas. Other than that it becomes storage space.

[livinincali]

It’s hard to grow tuition at 10% per year if you can’t get your hands on new pots of money. The college cost bubble will pop at some point, but maybe not quick enough to save some of you. Unfortunately people have to vote with their wallets and stop playing the FAFSA game. I think we’re at that point where the return on investment has to be considered. Is a $100K education really going to get you a positive return for your particular child? The content I learned in college a decade ago is exactly the same as the content today yet it costs 3-5 times as much.

[livinincali]

I used to live in Mira Mesa and I can understand it’s appeals for some demographics, but it’s not for me. Kind of amazing that a community built to be affordable for higher ranking enlisted (E5+) military families is getting to cash out to Engineers and Software Developers. The typical military of today has no shot of owning in Mira Mesa anymore. I wonder if it’s possible that 20 years down the road is goes back to that era of affordability. Probably not as long as QCOM and the businesses it spawned are around.

[livinincali]

[quote=poorgradstudent]Although once all is said and done, if they’re projecting a small surplus they’ll probably only break even.

I do hope “surplus” = paying down debt and saving for a rainy day. The biggest mistake GW Bush made was giving away money rather than paying down the debt when we had a surplus during his years.[/quote]

Bush didn’t have a surplus although he might have if they didn’t lower the tax rate. Clinton had a few years of surplus if you include social security but that’s really an accounting gimmick. Federal spending ex social security vs revenues ex social security have been negative for decades.

[livinincali]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]What would members of Gen X/Y think if they contribute all their lives to SS and then find out at the 11th hr (age 65) that their benefits will be drastically reduced or eliminated?

Boomers, in general, worked hard all their lives in much lesser circumstances than younger workers of today and many are still working. They *deserve* to retire.[/quote]I’m part of the Gen X/Y you’re referring to and I’m expecting my benefits will be drastically reduced or eliminated. That’s why I’m not counting on them in my planning. FYI, those WWII and Greatest generation paid into the system all their lives as well and they die a lot earlier, which mean they take out less. So your entire argument sounds like the boomer will be a biggest drainer yet due to their longevity and the medical advancements.[/quote]

I’m pretty much expecting the same thing. Social Security has always been a pay as you go system, and frankly Social Security is fairly fixable. Tweak the retirement age, index the payment increases to actual revenue coming in, maybe some means testing for high income, and you can probably keep the system. You might lose ground to inflation but there won’t be a sudden shock that is built into the current system when the IOUs run out in about 20 years.

It’s medicare and medicaid that aren’t fixable. Pretty much everybody is going to cost $250K+ in medical care before they die and most put in a tiny fraction of that amount in payments.

[Author]

Posts